This is what rape culture looks like

The story broke over the weekend on television: a group of Auckland teenagers had engaged in a prolonged campaign of rape, which they documented on Facebook for the added pleasure of shaming their victims. They called themselves a name that I’m not going to repeat, to avoid glamourising these crimes in the very terms that these young men chose to describe them. Suffice to say that they styled themselves as vigilantes. We were told that the police was aware of the group, but that since none of the victims had laid a formal complaint, it could not build a strong enough case, and thus – it seems – was biding its time, waiting for more evidence.

There were questions, of course, from the beginning: how exactly was the evidence lacking if it was pasted all over Facebook? What consideration had been given to preventing more assaults, while the police bid its time? They had known for two years. But it got worse: it turned out that some victims had come forward. As many as four of them in fact. As young as 13. At least one had filed a formal complaint. And still the police insisted their case wasn’t strong enough. They did ask her, though, the 13-year-old: what was she wearing? Was it a skirt? Over and over.

It has been a gruelling few days: a time of mounting anger and frustration as the incompetence and the lies of the investigators were slowly revealed. Coming as I do from a society that harbours few illusions concerning the role of our police in enforcing the status quo, it never ceases to surprise me how much genuine respect large sectors of the New Zealand population have for theirs. Even after a historic case of sexual violence by police officers was prosecuted and occupied the news for months. Even after a military-style dawn raid on the predominantly Maori settlement of Ruatoki to round up eight political radicals on ludicrous terrorism charges. Even after the blockbuster movie-style taking – complete with helicopters – of the dangerous international criminal Kim Dotcom. And then, going back no longer than a generation: the batoning of anti-Apartheid protesters and the repression of Indigenous rights’ activist groups.

Still, for many, that innocence is never lost, and so this time too – on TV, on the radio, on social media – there was at first no shortage of police apologists, and the disbelief was slow to catch on. Surely they wouldn’t just allow it to happen for so long?

Rape culture works in multiple ways to silence the victims, hide the crime and question the very idea that such a thing as rape can exist in society. What case could be more exemplary than one in which the victims came forward, but weren’t believed, even as the rapists themselves publicised the crime – and still nothing happened?

On Tuesday, something else happened. A young woman who knew some of the victims of the gang, and who herself had narrowly escaped being assaulted, phoned a popular Auckland radio talk-show to speak about the case. Without working off a script, the hosts – Willie Jackson and John Tamihere, two former left-wing MPs who still play major leadership roles in their communities – responded by subjecting her to the kind of interrogation we might expect of a lawyer defending a rape case. This would have been shocking and outrageous enough if it had happened in court. In the context of the radio interview of a person who had called in to share a deeply traumatic experience, it was devastating.

There is no longer a publicly available recording of the segment. The station took it down after the initial furious backlash. When I asked around on Twitter for a copy, I was offered a transcription of the questions alone. It’s a text that fails to account for the calm and the strength with which the young woman – who went by the name of Amy – answered the interrogation. Yet, without the details that situate them, the questions acquire a universal value and are, if possible, even more chilling. I’ve reproduced them below as they were supplied to me by Hazel Phillips, whom I thank.

Tell me this, how old are you?

How did your parents consent to you going out as a 14-year-old til 3am in the morning?

So anyway you fibbed, lied, whatever, and went out to the parties –­ did you not know they were up to this mischief?

Well, you know when you were going to parties, were you forced to drink?

Don’t youse [sic] know what these guys are up to?

Yeah but girls shouldn’t be drinking anyway, should they?

Why is it that it’s only taken you this arvo to stand up and say this happened?

I know you’re only 18 but as the pressure comes on, a lot more girls who might have consented who are identified might well just line up and say they were raped as well.

How free and easy are you kids these days out there? You were 14 [when you had sex], yeah?

But if some of the girls have consented, that doesn’t make them rapists, does it?

You see Amy, when you get to that sort of number and you get people like you who’ve been around for three years, you know what, I find it very difficult to understand why an allegation, if rape has occurred, it hasn’t happened before.

That’s why I’m getting a bit confused here right. The girls like them, the girls think they’re handsome, the girls go out with them, then you say they get raped, right?

The other side come to it, are they willing drinkers, all those questions come in don’t they?

Do you think over this period any of the girls could have got together and said, this is not on?

This is what rape culture sounds like: victim-shaming, blaming alcohol or lying to one’s parents, the core belief that if rape happens often enough, it’s no longer rape. It’s all there.

This week, our collective conscience has been shaken. It’s time to turn the outrage and anger into collective action, so that we may not regain that false, misplaced sense of innocence and trust.

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Giovanni Tiso is an Italian writer and translator based in Aotearoa/New Zealand and the editor of Overland’s online magazine. He tweets as @gtiso.

Comments

Giovanni, you should have also mentioned your tremendous role in bring the radio station to some account, by asking questions of their advertisers. What you have done, in addition to this blog, is social action of the very best kind.

Great post to sit alongside that of Kirstin Whalen’s a few days ago. It’s unsurprising that 2 former left-wing politicians were involved in a the despicable grilling of a young woman. The incompetence and complicity of police forces in sanctioning sexual assault is well known. But rape culture and misogyny is still the unacknowledged cancer in Left politics, an issue that men of the Left have generally preferred to pay lip service to only. Anecdotal narratives of Left politics are rife with stories from women who thought that Left politics meant a a degree of safety and acknowledgment of misogyny, only to discover that the reverse was true.
It’s also worth noting that the NZ rapists were teenage boys. In a social order that eroticises rape and situates individuals within a context of the continued violent neoliberalised objectification of individuals, its unsurprising that boys become rapists and boast about it.

As much as the behaviour of the police in this case is deplorable and has undoubtedly added greatly to the burden of the victims, it isn’t reasonable to make the wholesale statement that police are only there to maintain the status quo. That well may be the attitude of government, but it’s drawing a very long bow to say that it is an attitude necessarily shared by all police.

Over a lifetime of dealing with police I have had experiences ranging from infuriating to frightening. I have also been both humbled and moved by decent human beings who still believe in honour, who have put the well-being of a person very dear to me well ahead of their own safety. There are police who enter into their very difficult job with only the desire to serve. Those who do so with sincerity deserve some sympathy for the culture they must try and work within. Not all of their colleagues are worthwhile human beings, as you point out.

Let’s not forget that among this group are people who risk their own necks rescuing drivers from burning cars, or, for that matter, here in Australia, campaign for more humane treatment of rape victims by the court.

By making such a wholesale categorisation you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse “culture” generally and police specifically of.

I think trying to defend police behaviour and culture by picking out individuals is entirely redundant.
As with all groups and cultures, there may be examples, however few, of justice and heroism, but that does not a just and heroic movement make.
Police are continuously enacting harm which oppresses and kills, yet are also continually excused. The Woods commission (I think) was a unique insight into just how far the beast would go, and yet scrutiny of Police is largely an interior matter these days. A joke.

I think people buy what cops sell because they are so entirely privileged that they are blind to the injustices that the oppressed and disadvantaged experience.
POC, the disabled, the poor, punks and sex workers (among others) are systematically targeted so as to maintain the status quo you are loathe to acknowledge. Perhaps feminism soon will join the chant of ACAB.

Big business controls the strings of government, government controls the strings of the Police.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Animal Farm

To me you spoil this by mentioning the Dotcom episode, where the Police were directed from above and the Ureweras incident, where the guilty walked free, just because of technical irregularities in evidence gathering. The rest I agree with.

The target of this soapbox statement is the act of rape.
Usually there are no independent witnesses to a rape, so the victim is doubly duded by having to give supporting evidence and not having that evidence believed. Why should any focus be on the sexual history of the victim? If anything, the focus should be on any history of violence by the accused. It seems odd too to speak and write of rape and culture as one – ‘rape culture’ – but horribly damning if so. Also, such terms as ‘rape happens’ or ‘rape happening’ lack causality, and suggest that rape occurs naturally, like falling rain. Language fixation on my part, perhaps, but partner too to ways of excusing rape, ideologically, I’d suggest. Rape doesn’t just happen, rape is deliberately inflicted on the body, on bodies – female bodies mostly -and is not sex either.
Rape is a crime of violence against women and children (and men), and needs to acknowledged and recorded as such in every rape event.

Dennis, I’m not sure if I’m following you here, and it will be interesting what Giovanni has to say if he chooses to reply. I think that focussing on the language of ‘rape happening’ as ideological in some way needs some more thinking through. Kirstin Whalen used the phrase ‘rape happened to me’ (rather than ‘I was raped’) in her post and I think that her choice deserves endorsement and support. To experience a terrible and humiliating trauma is to struggle with the language around it. If one is listening to women who have experienced rape I think one needs to be very sensitive to the description they use and how they use it and completely support and respect their language choices. A woman may not even want to use the term ‘rape’. We have to enter into the traumatised person’s world and stand with them there. Otherwise it’s just another rape. I’m not in any way suggesting that you are taking an insensitive position, but I think that its for those who have experienced the event to tell other how they want it represented.
I’d also like to emphasise that rape is an act of sexualised violence carried out almost entirely by men. When men are raped they are raped by other men. It’s an issue of gender, of masculinity.

Thanks for the response. I figured more knowledgeable and experienced others in this field of sexualised violence would pick up flaws in my thoughts on this thorny issue, and were happy for there to be so, and go along with your point about women perhaps not wanting to use the term ‘rape’, however I knew no other terms to use other crime of violence. Sure, rape is sexualised violence, but allowing sex in creates, I think, from the perspective of a male perpetrator, an excuse for the violence (sex as some male right). I take the point too that each individual woman’s testimony and account should be allowed to stand, couched in a language that best witnesses an act of rape. Other than those instances, perhaps a more causative language is needed. I hope that is clearer. I didn’t really want to get involved in the issue, but in the end, thought I’d say something, in the hope of furthering discussion in some way. Cheers.

Yes, great work and great courage on the interview / advertising campaign. I guess too to fully understand the full spectrum of the physical and psychological effects of rape, those who have never experienced it themself need to fully comprehend and apprehend what rape sounds, feels, tastes and smells like, as well as looks like. My closest encounter with rape was from a distance only, when I met a woman in her early thirties who had been raped by the son of a wealthy Edo family while travelling in Japan in her late teens. Charges were laid and dropped before getting to court, although the rape allegation stood. A year or so after I met her, the woman was contacted by the Edo family’s lawyers requesting that the woman meet those lawyers in a plush Sydney pub for drinks and a meal to discuss the allegations. I was asked to come along for support, on the understanding that I said nothing about the rape. The lawyers wiped themselves out with sake and whisky and spent the evening talking and asking us about Charlie Chaplin. I went away feeling duped, feeling that I should have said something, and the woman did not wish to speak of the matter again. Nothing further has been heard from Japan as far as I know. Who was it who said that humour is no laughing matter?

Just a question. Many Radio Station host such as Michael Laws, Murray Deaker, Tony Veitch, Leigton Smith to name a few have made the most atrociously racist remarks against Maori and Pacific Islanders. The sponsors didn’t leave like they have now. Is this not showing that they all support racism?

Has there been as strong a lobby to get those presenters removed from the air for racist remarks as there has for these two wastes of oxygen? If not, why not? Is this not showing that the New Zealand public supports racism?

Hard to answer the first part of the question. The outrage against Paul Holmes after his appalling Waitangi Day column was very significant, but he also enjoyed strong support. It’s the balance of the forces that tells us how strong racism is in New Zealand, more than a case of activists failing to mobilise against instances of racist speak.

Jackson and Tamihere were scoffing defensively (why?) at one vulnerable individual with the courage to offer them her story about a deeply tragic situation. I think this is very different from stereotypes or slurs generally aimed against absent minorities or public figures or whatever. Those may be embarrassingly unenlightened, we would like to see an end to them, but they are not the same, and comparing them seems like apologetics to one who heard this disturbing interview in full.
Mean while Tony Vietch has taken Deaker’s job, adding injury to insult. Radio Misogyny

The boys admitted to the crime on facebook- that is enough evidence if the girl (s) corroborate. End of story but it is and time to update the topic in the way of education for young ones in our society and what parents should be providing them in supervision and conversation and also what police should be doing in this matter.

Giovanni, I think you are a real hero for speaking to advertisers about the infamous “Willy and JT” broadcast.
Your response in bringing that horrible interview with the young woman to the attention of those who advertise on Radio Live, asking them to take a stand, was very effective, as well as being perfectly legal. I have such respect for you. Well done.

Thank you. I got so much support this week, it’s been humbling. And also a little bit heartening.

I was entirely cynical when I started my little campaign, and fully expecting to collect a series of fudging answers in newspeak. Clearly there was enough of a palpable sentiment in the public conversations for the advertisers to see that the smart thing to do was to just comply. That is what encouraging, more than the concrete effects of advertising budgets getting shuffled.

Well, you were the spark, so well done. All credit to you, even if, or especially if, you were successful beyond your wildest dreams.

I find the whole cascade you started encouraging and heartening, too. I would go further; I choose to hope that not only did the advertisers see that the smart thing to do was to follow the groundswell of opinion, but also that the people directing these companies were personally appalled by the interrogation of “Amy” and the non-apology afterward. I want to give them credit for that. This whole affair is about basic human decency and respect, which the interview offended against on so many levels.

Cool to hear you on Radio NZ. By the way, I lost a previous, incomplete reply- if it arrived at your end my apologies.

A constant this week has been how many of the formal responses I received ended with the words “And on a personal note…”. A lot of people within those organizations felt very strongly about these issues as well, and it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge it.

To pinpoint this elusive “rape culture” in real time, simply conduct a search for the term on Youtube. In every video, the comments section is full of aggressive “woe is me” males attempting to place the blame on women who falsely accuse men of rape.

If you wouldn’t make these kind of comments about the victim of a hate crime, you shouldn’t make them about rape victims. It’s like accusing James Byrd or Matthew Shepard for being murdered because “some” people are wrongfully convicted of murder sometimes. Those cases have zero to do with the issue at hand: personal accountability and punishing violent criminals.

In order to change the laws and bring justice, we must raise awareness that a problem exists. People who deny the existence of rape culture fall into one of three categories: sexists, rapist sympathizers or actual rapists.

Also: ‘feminism’ is not a dirty word. In no way is a feminist on par with a rapist.

Well done for your great work this week.
How a station can brush off losing advertisers by declaring they are going to go “ad-free” brings us into the realms of the ridiculous.
Man of the Week to you definitely.

This is an amazing piece, and I wish criticism like this was aired in public more often, not only when we are forced to admit that we’re failing survivors.
On Overland, however, I think it may be largely a case of an audience which agrees with the sentiments and observations Giovanni offers herein.

Giovanni is to be commended for targeting advertisers, as nothing talks quite like money walking.
Does anyone have links or references to this action?
It recalls the Kyle and Jackie O ‘embarrassment’.

Terrific radio interview Giovanni. Clear and straightforward and continually emphasising the need for the offenders to take responsibility as well as pointing out how the blame gets placed not just onto the victims of the assaults but also onto women as a group. I note the Radio Live ‘apology’ too. It was something of what I think of as a ‘celebrity apology’ – the apology that tends to still shift the blame onto another; ‘I’m sorry if you were offended’ rather than ‘What I did was wrong’.

These girls are Children. This interview appears to put these child victims at fault. We all know how easy it is to think you’re just going to have a bit of fun, but then it isn’t fun any more, it is sexual assault.
I bank with ANZ and shop at Countdown. I am pleased these companies and others have reflected my anger at the way this (now) young woman was treated by pulling their ads from this station.

Great work and all, but I think your comment “This would have been shocking and outrageous enough if it had happened in court.” expresses a level of naiveté. This type of questioning, and far worse, is prolific in court cases for rape. Besmirching the witness, addressing their sexual history, this is what happens in an adverserial system of justice…

I object to the term ‘rape culture.’ If were truly lived in a rape culture, there would be 100,000s of women raped across Australia every day. It would be as common as advertising. In fact, a woman being raped in a park (say) is likely to be met with people intervening, calling the police, etc. It is an anti-rape culture protective of women, which is why personal violence is actually so rare in Australia when comparted to other countries and other times. Oh, and the main victims of violence in this society are young men. And gang rape victims are most likely to be young men in jail. Women are not wimpering, second-class ‘victims’ and it is time we dropped the victim attitude. My sympathies to the victims.

Your standard for what /would/ equate to a ‘rape culture’ seems rather high, Diana. Hundreds of thousands daily? If my maths is correct, even just 100,000 would mean every adult female Australian would be raped, on average, more than twice a year.

Yeah, I guess, “we” should drop the “victim attitude”. Life is not nearly as bad as that.

That’s 1/3 of Australian women. One third. That is millions of women, Diana. In a country with a pretty small population. I’m sure NZ statistics are much the same.

Your hypothetical “woman getting raped in a park in front of witnesses who call the police” (a seriously uncommon scenario) doesn’t really make a strong case for Australia as a culture protective of women against that reality.

Statistics relating to other violent crimes do not make the prevalence of sexual crimes any less significant. Nor do they address the serious cultural issues which contribute to these crimes going unreported and under-prosecuted, with convictions uncommon and victim-blaming rife.

Giovanni ended his post above with a plea for anger and outrage, so that our societies don’t continue on with “that false, misplaced sense of innocence and trust.”

Looking at the facts head on, and stating them, and saying that it just isn’t good enough… That it not “wimpering”.

Trying to make it seem as though millions of women being sexually assaulted is a state of affairs to be lauded as “protective”, though?

What is that?

I’m not having a go at you, but that is a part of what rape culture is. And it doesn’t exist because everyone is evil and sexist and loves rape. It happens because people cling desperately – and sometimes viciously – to illusions of ‘a safe world’ and they see the victims as the threat, instead of the crime.

Diana I think you have totally missed Giovanni’s point – and incidently not sure why you are discussing Australia. However rape culture is all around us, whether you object to the term or not. People like Willie and JT normalise and continue this culture by passing it off as being girls fault for drinking, being out late and allowing themselves to be in this situation – you know, the situations where good old red blooded boys/men have the right to act like wild animals if a girl has dressed up or turned up as prey.
Good on you for leading this assault and exposing that it is NOT OK to keep doing this. Hopefully you have triggered what may become a landslide – one that’s lead by men wanting other men to change.

While I have not been following this particular case in NZ – I take issue with the writer collective naming four completely unrelated and separate cases where there is cause to criticise the police, in order to make his point about systemic corruption. In the situation of Ruatoki, a group of older “community leaders” with an antagonistic and militant attitudes were actively training and encouraging impressionable younger men to to act out violent scenarios. The state was justified in my view to take a hard line with them. The actions of the police were examined retrospectively and errors in the execution of the raid discussed in tribunal.

On the one hand we are discussing a segment of society condoning violence and horrified at the results male violence towards vulnerable young females and on the other hand, suggesting that violence is acceptable because it is coming from a minority group. I disagree. I believe that the actions of certain individuals in the Ruatoki situation, however charismatic, were dangerous and irresponsible. In particular encouraging young men (and women) to commit crimes while a charismatic and guileful leader hopes to stand back to watch the results, remaining in the shadows, with no blame attributed to him, is especially harmful

I know that I am preaching to the converted here but I thought I would share an example of what happens when the Short Skirt argument is taken to its natural conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum… except it turns out to be real life.
I live in Egypt, and just found a quote in an article in an English language Egyptian newspaper. They were interviewing young Egyptian men from a poor, very socially conservative part of town who blamed women for being harassed: “There are many girls who just want to be harassed, walking around in the streets with their eyes uncovered.”
Egypt is a pretty moderate part of the Middle East but over the last decade or so more and more women have started wearing the head-scarf and black over-dress. The more people there are who wear the head-scarf, then the harder it becomes to not wear it. The same with public participation – there have been horrific gang rapes in Tahrir Square which really put women off from going out to protest. This means that fewer and fewer women are protesting, so the ones that are left find themselves increasingly targeted.
So this kind of comment leaves me feeling two things. The first is that really, men like this don’t want me to exist. Even to see my eyes is too much for them, they would rather just rub me out. The second is that female visibility, voice, and presence in public places helps to keep all women safe just by making it normal to be a woman. I know that New Zealand is a long way culturally from Egypt, but confronting these attitudes here has made me realise that these attitudes are also prevalent in NZ. The difference is just a matter of degree.

“Rape culture works in multiple ways to silence the victims, hide the crime and question the very idea that such a thing as rape can exist in society.”

A radio station was successfully outed in this rape case. Just how many institutions systematically dependent on the those conditions which produce a rape culture would need outing, I wonder, and is it possible?

I don’t think there is anything remotely intelligent in knee jerk reactionary hyperbole.These are 17!!!!!17 year old boys who have learned this kind of atrocious behaviour from ADULTS. It is LEARNED and`SUPPLANTS the value of a caring upbringing and guidance from primary attachment figures(adults) if these positive relationships have not been evident in their lives. These kind of ‘sexual groupings/couplings” are prevalent in the US.Copycat? It’s called ‘hooking up” Consensually. Is this rape? The fact is that men covet with their eyes and these boys are reaching the height of their drive(anyone heard of Sigmund Freud?) These boys have been accused of RAPE.What they did is unacceptable behaviour that needs to be replaced by something else. But this something else is quickly being lost in the so called ‘social revolution of freedom in sexual expression and rights” ,like tears in the rain. All of you sound like a baying lynch mob and are completely missing the underlying problems that are fueling the different types of malaise especially in our young men.

Excellent work Giovanni!
It’s been amusing to read the sputteringly Blimpish reactions of some radio industry people on the New Zealand Radio Facebook page.
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/NZRadio/)
Here’s a little gem: ‘…but the revenue stream of a station should never be put at jeopardy …’
Bless.
Funny how ‘free market’ cheerleaders get upset when companies exercise their freedom by choosing where they will place their advertising.
Congratulations and thanks for a brilliantly executed piece of social activism.
Bat/Bean/Beam is a gem of a blog too.

Well done. The police stuff up completely, they fail to act, lie about their behaviour and you target two talk back host. Why? Because they are left wing? Or because they are Maori? Now there are two less opinions on the air, and is it a coincidence that they happen to represent one of the most dissempowered groups in our country? Fewer opinions, no wonder the heavy hitters like ANZ and Telecom withdrew their loot so quickly. Don’t kid yourself it was because of the “public outcry”. Like they didn’t pull their advertising after Paul Holmes’ racist rants.
Why shouldn’t we ask questions about mothers who allow their children to be out drinking and partying at 2 in the morning? Is this not first a failure of parenting? And you can’t ask questions like that without upsetting a few individuals. Public opinion is not now, nor ever should be, the moderator of public interest questioning. Yet you have launched a witch hunt on the basis of hearsay, and your targets have been burned. Roar of the crowd today, more profits for the corporates tomorrow. No wonder Matthew Hooton is such a tower of support.
If the roles of Willie and JT as community leaders are compromised as a result of your activities, will you be so self-satisfied then? Do you even care now you have had you burst of fame?

Without in any way accepting the rest of your argument, could you kindly read the list of questions I posted above and point me precisely to the bit where Willie and JT questioned “mothers who allow their children to be out drinking and partying at 2 in the morning?” Ta.

The point is not what Willie and JT said in this case, but where you draw the line. Yes, I spend 3 hours a week on urban Maori radio, to say I am employed is a matter of opinion. To say I take Maori media seriously is probably more accurate, as well as the role of these two in addressing the real issues in their community, rather then just posing on the back of the latest theory.
As for your campaign, it is based solely on hearsay, its consequences have been racist in practice if not in intent, and I note that I invited you to make your point on Radio Waatea tonight, but you declined. What, no money in it for you?

I feel compelled to point out that Giovanni shares a home city with the Italian Fascists, and his embrace of a corporate/public theology is scarily like the ideology of that party. Could this be why he identified John and Willie as Left Wing – what the hell is that to do with anything?
just saying.

If by hearsay you mean a recording and transcription of the Amy interview, then I guess yes, it’s hearsay. As for the money bit, I haven’t done any paid work in a week, my partner has had to take time off work so I could fulfill media engagements (not because I want to be a celebrity, as you suggest, but because I thought it was important) and got paid no money by TVNZ, RNZ or TV3. Just for the record.

I think its disgusting that a rape victim is asked what were they wearing?

If you blame the rape victim because her clothes were provocative, you must also blame the bank that was robbed because its contents were provocative !

The criminal law in NZ specifically states that a girl under the age of 16 years CANNOT consent. Therefore any male that engages in sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 RAPES her.

In addition to that it is arguable that a person who is drunk cannot consent either.Consider the notion of date rape.

Young girls are unlikely to lodge a complaint for several reasons. Firstly they will not want their parents to know and because of that reluctance, are likely to be confused and won’t know where to go or who to turn to. If they go to the police again fears will be raised that their parents will find out.

It is a well know fact that victims of sexual abuse do not come forward and press charges or if they do it is often years after the event, and it usually takes that first brave person to start the ball rolling before other victims come out into the open as well. Look at all the historical sex abuse cases rearing their ugly heads now a days.

This issue has shined the spotlight on the need for communities with the support of schools to make their pupils aware of the various community support services out there such as a Community Law Centre where they can obtain free legal advice from a lawyer, who is bound by very strict confidentiality measures and cannot tell their parents. They also need to know that they can take a friend along with them to see a lawyer.

A good criminal lawyer would explain what name suppression is and how their identity will be protected by the Courts. That when that charge is read out and put to the accused, the victims name is not read out but is replaced by “the person named in the information” They should also organize a female police officer to interview the girl and take a statement. But the girls are unlikely to know any of this and so remain silent for fear of being publicly exposed amoungst other things.

There is no rape culture, and it is lazy of people to say, almost without thinking, that there is.

What there is are a group of individuals who rape, condone it, or make excuses for it. Equally there are those who make false complaints of rape, condone such behaviour and make excuses for it. Fortunately, the vast majority of people, including men and women, do neither.

It is indeed shameful when a modern society such as our own does still not manage to “socialise” its young males to recognise and respect the opposite sex as individuals rather than objects. Must modern western women wear a burkha to prevent the base, undisciplined, selfish and mysogenist behaviour such as this.? The young will always rebel, disobey parents, get drunk whatever, and fault cannot be laid at the parents’ door in every case. The culture has become corrupt through TV and computer attitudes and these do not work in the interests of society as a whole. The individual victims are children who do not realise the effect alcohol induced behaviour can have on their future lives and psyches and the young men need severe reeducation as to their attitudes towards women and girls and be disciplined through the courts if necessary to get the message across. Condoning their behaviour will have severe consequences for our society. – think Caligula and the Fall of Rome. Are we on our way to repeating history?